| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOP
|
Organizational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Sessions
|
Leadership |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Liaison |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cassell (Author)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Traveler]
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.
|
Investigator |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
D. JOHN SAUER
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SSA [Redacted]
|
Liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's office
|
Limits plea agreements to |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Professional investigative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
John Ashcroft
|
Leadership |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement)
|
Non involvement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Professional liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lyeson Daniel
|
Employment alleged |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
William Barr
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Institutional independence |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Traveler
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Interview | The subject must agree to meet with and be interviewed by the USAO-SDNY, the Federal Bureau of In... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Dr. Loftus consulted with various government agencies involved in the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants served on RRA offices; 40+ boxes obtained by DOJ | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice seized 40+ boxes of documents from RRA offices | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice sequestered about 13 boxes of documents related to the Epstein case from RR... | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Witness Loftus consulted with various government agencies at different points in their career. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Department of Justice's practice of limiting plea agreements to specific USAOs ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-25 | Legal notice | The Department of Justice sent a notice advising that the Court was seeking letters from victims ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-18 | Legal filing | The Department of Justice filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Ghi... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-18 | N/A | Filing of United States' Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Memorandum issuance | The [DOJ] and [FBI] issued a memorandum describing a review of investigative holdings relating to... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-06 | N/A | Issuance of Memorandum regarding Epstein investigation review | Unknown | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Publication | The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum about their inv... | N/A | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Anticipated production of Epstein FOIA documents to The Times. | New York | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of OPR investigation report concerning Epstein investigation | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of DOJ OPR report on Epstein investigation. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-08-14 | N/A | Legal hold distributed by counsel regarding inmate death. | N/A | View |
| 2019-03-05 | N/A | Just days before a Friday deadline, the Justice Department reassigned the Epstein victims' rights... | Atlanta | View |
| 2018-05-10 | N/A | Department of Justice agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Publication revision | The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (USAM) was revised and renamed the Justice Manual. | N/A | View |
| 2017-07-26 | Document production | This document is page 1 of a 95-page set produced in response to Public Records Request No. 17-295. | N/A | View |
This document is page 97 of a court filing (Document 563) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 9: The Indictment,' in which the judge explains to the jury that an indictment is merely an accusation, not evidence of guilt, and that Maxwell retains the presumption of innocence.
This document is Page 96 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt,' defining the legal standard for the jury and explaining that reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or speculation. The text explicitly outlines the jury's duty to convict if they have an abiding belief of Maxwell's guilt, or to acquit if reasonable doubt exists.
This document is page 92 of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. The text contains standard jury instructions where the judge clarifies that their comments or questions should not be interpreted as an opinion on witness credibility or the evidence, emphasizing that the verdict is solely the jury's role.
This document is page 65 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically highlighting how to weigh the testimony of a witness with a prior felony conviction (highlighted text). It also instructs the jury on the use of pseudonyms or first names to protect the privacy of certain witnesses.
This document is page 64 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains 'Instruction No. 44: Credibility of Witnesses,' which guides the jury on how to evaluate witness testimony based on demeanor, consistency, honesty, and potential interest in the case's outcome. The text outlines the jurors' right to accept or reject testimony in whole or in part based on their assessment of truthfulness.
This document is page 22 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 13 regarding Count Two: Enticement to Engage in an Illegal Sexual Activity. The text cites Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, defining the federal crime of knowingly persuading or coercing an individual to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illegal sexual activity.
This document is page 20 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 11 regarding 'Multiple Counts,' instructing the jury to consider each of the six counts separately. The text shows specific edits replacing the generic term 'Defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell' and outlines the burden of proof required by the Government.
This document is the final page (Page 82 of 82, internal page 2) of a blank verdict form filed on December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists Counts Four, Five, and Six, which include charges of transportation for illegal sexual activity involving 'Jane,' sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor named 'Carolyn.' The form includes spaces for the jury foreperson to mark 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' and to sign.
This document is page 75 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 56, which explains the definition of 'Redacted' items and instructs the jury to disregard reasons for redactions and focus only on admitted evidence.
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 55 from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The instruction advises the jury regarding 'Preparation of Witnesses,' clarifying that it is not improper for witnesses to meet with lawyers (Government, defense, or personal) prior to testifying to review subjects and exhibits. The judge instructs that while the jury may consider this preparation when evaluating credibility, the weight given to it is within their discretion.
This page contains Jury Instruction No. 2 ('Role of the Jury') filed on December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text instructs the jury that they are the sole judges of facts and credibility, and clarifies that statements made by lawyers or rulings made by the judge do not constitute evidence.
This document is page 2 of 4 of a court filing (Document 561) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It consists of a list of Government Exhibit identifiers (GX-2 and GX-3 series), all ending in '-R', which suggests they are redacted files being entered into the record.
This document is a cover page for 'Exhibit A' associated with court case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It was filed on December 17, 2021, and bears the Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00008395.
This is a Notice of Filing of Official Transcript filed on December 8, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr 330). The notice, signed by Court Reporter Rebecca Forman, informs parties that the transcript for a conference held on November 11, 2021, has been filed and outlines the timeline and rules for requesting redactions of personal data.
This legal document, a letter from the law office of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, is being subjected to "draconian" and punitive pretrial detention conditions. The letter posits that these harsh measures are not related to Maxwell's own conduct but are a direct result of the government's attempt to repair its reputation following the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody. The attorney details failed attempts to resolve these issues through internal prison channels and claims the conditions are impeding Maxwell's ability to prepare her legal defense.
This document is page 3 of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 7, 2020. The letter argues that Maxwell is facing unduly harsh conditions, including solitary isolation, as a result of the Bureau of Prisons' incompetence and embarrassment over Jeffrey Epstein's suicide. Sternheim asserts that Maxwell is an 'exemplary detainee' and calls for Warden Tellez to address the concerns regarding her confinement, which are allegedly interfering with her legal defense.
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on November 9, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Maxwell sought to appeal a lower court's denial of her request to modify a protective order and attempted to consolidate this with the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The court outlines legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and 'collateral order exception' to justify the dismissal.
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text outlines legal precedents determining the scope of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), arguing that the prosecution is not obligated to produce records from other government agencies (like the SEC or components of the DOJ/FBI) unless a specific 'joint investigation' occurred. It cites various cases (Middendorf, Collins, Stein) to establish the criteria for what constitutes a joint investigation.
This document is Page 2 of a court filing (likely from United States v. Maxwell based on the case number) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government updates the court on discovery progress, committing to a November 9, 2020 deadline for electronic discovery and outlining schedules for producing witness statements (Brady/Giglio materials) 4 to 8 weeks before trial. The document also argues the legal scope of the prosecution's obligations, citing case law (Avellino, Quinn) to assert that the prosecution is not responsible for knowledge held by other government agencies (like the FBI) not directly involved in the investigation.
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order resolves a dispute in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN by adopting the Government's proposed protective order and rejecting the Defense's request for further restrictions on discovery materials as unwarranted and unprecedented.
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020. The Court rules in favor of the Government regarding a protective order, restricting Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team from publicly disclosing the identities of alleged victims and witnesses, even those who may have previously made public statements about Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The judge argues that participating in a criminal investigation warrants privacy protection distinct from previous voluntary public statements.
This document is the first page of a Protective Order filed on July 30, 2020, in the Southern District of New York case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan outlines that the Government intends to produce discovery materials that are sensitive, relate to ongoing investigations, or contain personal identifying information. The order is designed to prevent premature disclosure or public dissemination of these materials to protect privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the government's argument against a defendant's request to publicly name victims of herself or Epstein. The government contends that such disclosure is inappropriate and violates victims' rights to privacy and safety, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and several legal precedents. The filing supports a proposed protective order that would prevent public identification of victims while still allowing the defense to prepare for trial.
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit A' of Document 29-1, filed on July 27, 2020, as part of legal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The page is marked with a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number but contains no other substantive information.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity